Editor’s note: Welcome to the seventeenth of a 33-part series dissecting the 83rd Academy Awards, brought to you by the Large Association of Movie Blogs and its assorted members. Every day leading up to the Oscars, a new post written by a different LAMB will be published, each covering a different category of the Oscars. To read any other posts regarding this event, please click the tag following the post. Thank you, and enjoy!

by Larry from The Movie Snob

The nominees for Art Direction range from the wild and warped to the prestigious and serene.  There are swirling magical landscapes, expressionistic dreamscapes, the expansive west and esteemed realms of royalty.  Art direction does not always recognize the wildest and most bizarre simply because of the noticeable effort or extravagance in the production values.  Many times, attention to detail and subtle craft plays a major factor in deciding the art direction winner.  Something else that works as an external influence on art direction is the film itself, and the number of other high-toned nominations it has received.  Seven of the last ten winners in this category have had their films nominated for either Best Picture or Best Foreign Language film, so the prestige of the picture itself can lean heavy on the decision of the voters. 

For Alice in Wonderland, Robert Stromberg and Karen O’Hara create a very Burton-esque world of grand landscapes, surreal images, and deep varying color palettes.  The same could be said for Stuart Cragi and Stephenie McMillan on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1, only their palette is much darker and more sinister.  These two pictures have collected a few technical awards; however they are not contenders in any of the major categories which is a decided disadvantage.  And their magical landscapes may also cancel one another out and split the votes. 

The remaining three nominees are not only bigger players in the Academy Awards overall, having all been nominated for Best Picture, but I feel they have a better chance at winning Best Art Direction.  The first of the three is Jess Gonchor and Nancy Haigh, and the dusty expanse they created in True Grit.  Westerns do not typically win art direction.  Then again, they aren’t typically nominated, so that recognition alone makes me think True Grit has a chance to win.  The odds are still against it, however, as I feel that the category will narrow down to Eve Stewart and Judy Farr’s work on The King’s Speech and Guy Hendrix Dias, Larry Dias, and Doug Mowat for Inception.  The latter has some breathtaking sets and postmodern dreamscapes, while the former exists all in reality but has a very deliberate look as well.  The Oscar could go to either of these pictures, but I feel like, as I sit here today, the momentum of The King’s Speech will propel it to a win.  That is not to say the art direction is not deserving, The King’s Speech is a beautiful and very detailed film, but if I were choosing the Award I may go with Inception because of the very unique creativity of the dream worlds.

Editor’s note: Welcome to the sixteenth of a 33-part series dissecting the 82st Academy Awards, brought to you by the Large Association of Movie Blogs and its assorted members. Every day leading up to the Oscars, a new post written by a different LAMB will be published, each covering a different category of the Oscars. To read any other posts regarding this event, please click the tag following the post. Thank you, and enjoy!

By Vanessa Weinert of The MovieNess.

The title Art Director is given to the person who is responsible for the overall look of a movie. Nowadays the term Production Designers seems to be more common but the Academy has kept the award name Best Art Direction for now. An Art Director or Production Designer is the head of the Art Department, responsible for everything including Costume and Set Design. The Set Director (included in this nomination) works below the Art Director. The first Academy Award in this category went to William Cameron Menzies for The Dove and Tempist in 1928. From the 1940’s to 1967 the Award was devided into two Awards. One for black-and-white and one for color films. In 1947 the title of the Award was changed from the “Interior Decoration” to “Best Art Direction - Set Decoration”.

Avatar

Rick Carter and Robert Stromberg (Art Direction); Kim Sinclair (Set Decoration)

Avatar could have easily been nominated for Best Animated Feature since more then half of the film is animated and/or blue screened. It is set on the planet Pandora, a world that had to be created from scratch. And let me just say - it was done extremely well. From flying dragons, floating mountains and more then one completely new species to glowing particles on pretty much everything, Avatar is a feast for the eyes. Pandora is filled with an arguably more beautiful flora and fauna then what we have on earth and is especially nice to look at at night when everything is illuminated. The scenes that are not 3D animation still have a lot of CGI in them because the movie is set in the far future and for example computer screens are holographic like in Star Wars. A lot of work went into the making of that movie and it really payed off. It is a stunning and innovative movie and I hope to see more like it in the future. The only thing I would argue is that the movie is especially fantastic to look at in 3D (or IMAX 3D) and will probably lose a lot of its charm once it comes out on DVD and the only way to watch it is in 2D on a TV screen.

This is Rick Carter’s second Oscar Nomination, he got his first one for Forest Gump (1994). He has also worked on films like Jurassic Park, Back to the Future and AI: Artificial Intelligence which probably caught James Cameron’s attention.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

Dave Warren and Anastasia Masaro (Art Direction); Caroline Smith (Set Decoration)

Similarly to Avatar, this film is divided into half animation and half live action. Although, in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus the real life Art Direction is absolutely gorgeous and the animated parts are, in my opinion, plain ugly. Director Terry Gilliam is known for his unusual taste in Art Direction and therefore it is no surprise that yet another one of his movies is nominated for best Art Direction. I do have to disagree with this nomination. I loved the way Gilliam portrays a mix of modern London with the mystery of Doctor Parnassus’ circus caravan. The caravan itself is so full of beautiful obscurities and the play with colors and shadows is very intriguing. But once a character steps behind the mirror into Parnassus’ imagination the film goes into really bad computer animation. What do I mean by bad? It looks like 3D animation that was done ten or twenty years ago. It doesn’t look like it was a conscious stylisitc decision but rather like a last minute solution. And what annoys me most about that is that it could have been so beautifully done with Gilliam’s usual theatrical “paper cut-out” sets that we all love so much.

Nine

John Myhre (Art Direction); Gordon Sim (Set Decoration)

Nine is based on the stage musical Nine (which is based on the Fellini film 8 1/2) and also uses a stage as the main focus of the movie. It is yet another film that is split in two parts: One is Guido Contini’s (Daniel Day-Lewis) real life and the other part is his fantasy. All of the fantasy scenes take place on the set of his upcoming movie which looks a lot like an opera stage. The props and the atmosphere of the stage change according to who the dream fantasy is about. For me this technique worked really well. It does give the movie a more theatrical feel to it. The real life scenes are set in Rome in the 1960’s. Italy is a beautiful setting and the Art Direction made sure to use the best spots. Although bloggers seem to disagree on how good the movie is, I don’t think there is any doubt on how beautiful the sets and costumes are.

John Myhre already received two Academy Awards for Best Art Direction for Chicago (together with Nine Set Decorator Gordon Sim) and Memories of a Geisha, both of which were directed by Rob Marshall. He was also nominated for his work on Dreamgirls and Elizabeth.

Sherlock Holmes

Sarah Greenwood (Art Direction); Katie Spencer (Set Decoration)

Set in 1891, Sherlock Holmes has that typical filthy look of the late 19th Century London. Everything is dark, mysterious and dirty. A lot of the look of this film was simply achieved by great cinematography but, of course, this only works on great sets. The Art Direction is well done but I don’t feel like it is award worthy. At least I didn’t notice anything special while watching it. Holmes’ apartment ist nicely done. It is old and full of stuff and has a very homely feel to it. There is really nothing wrong with the look of this film but I personally wouldn’t have nominated it for this category, I would have nominated it for Best Cinematography.

Sarah Greenwood (Art Direction) and Katie Spencer (Set Decoration) already received two Academy Award nominations for their work on Pride and Prejudice and Atonement, so arguably they would deserve to win an Oscar this year. But although the Art Direction was nice on Sherlock Holmes, it doesn’t feel special.

The Young Victoria

Patrice Vermette (Art Direction); Maggie Gray (Set Decoration)

The Young Victoria is the only film out of the five nomination that I have not personally seen. It is also the only film whose design relies solely on the actual look of the time. All the other nominated films were, at least partly, created out of the imagination. Looking at pictures and videos of The Young Victoria, the Art Direction looks very lush and grand. It does look beautiful and I am sure a lot of effort went into all the designs but it doesn’t look like something that I haven’t seen before.

This is Patrice Vermette’s first Oscar Nomination. Maggie Gray was previously nominated for Best Best Art Direction-Set Decoration for Terry Gilliam’s Brazil in 1985.

So who should get the Oscar for Best Art Direction - Set Decoration? Even though I didn’t like the movie that much, I would give this particular Oscar to Avatar. It has the most innovative Production Design that I have seen in a long time and really impressed me. What do you think?

Editor’s note: Welcome to the twenty-first of a 24-part series dissecting the 81st Academy Awards, brought to you by the Large Association of Movie Blogs and its assorted members. Every day leading up to the Oscars, a new post written by a different LAMB will be published, each covering a different category of the Oscars. To read any other posts regarding this event, please click the tag following the post. Thank you, and enjoy!

By Mike of Spaghetti Sauce and Sweet Peas.

Achievement in Art Direction
Changeling, Art Direction: James J. Murakami, Set Decoration: Gary Fettis
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Art Direction: Donald Graham Burt, Set Decoration: Victor J. Zolfo
The Dark Knight, Art Direction: Nathan Crowley, Set Decoration: Peter Lando
The Duchess, Art Direction: Michael Carlin, Set Decoration: Rebecca Alleway
Revolutionary Road, Art Direction: Kristi Zea, Set Decoration: Debra Schutt

It feels like any category without a Slumdog nomination is a huge relief for the other films. Especially, a film like Benjamin Button, which may get shut out (though I think that’s unlikely). The Art Directors Guild announced their winners last week. They were the following:

Best period film design: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Best fantasy film design: The Dark Knight
Best contemporary film design: Slumdog Millionaire

Even before the guild announced their winners, Button was the frontrunner in this race. This should only further establish that. On a side note, I’m still trying to figure out why The Dark Knight is a fantasy film. I personally think this should be one of the less dramatic categories of the night.

Changeling would be more of a threat if the film was better received within the Academy. I also think it’s comparable to Button and that film’s art direction is superior. Anyway, this is Murakami’s second nomination (’84 for The Natural) and Fettis’ second as well (’90 for The Godfather: Part III). Both are looking for their first win. When you watch this film, it just feels like a standard 1920s LA re-creation.

Button is the frontrunner in this category and rightfully so. It’s very epic and the film spans almost a hundred years. That’s a lot of different worlds to create and they should be rewarded for it. This is actually the first nomination for both Burt and Zolfo. I feel like if Button can only win this award, then this should be it.

The Dark Knight presents a different type of art direction. It’s not a period film, but a comic book adaptation (or a fantasy film according to the ADG). The city of Gotham is dark and creepy at times. This is the second nomination for Crowley (’06 for The Prestige) and first for Lando. The last couple years the Academy has gone with more fantasy in this category (Pan’s Labyrinth and Sweeney Todd), so that could bode well for Knight. I just don’t know how much the Academy really likes this film. It was shut out of Best Picture, but landed all these technical categories. I feel like this film could either take home like five Oscars or one. This film could be a real wild card.

The Duchess is a classic period piece that almost always gets nominated for this category. This is the first nomination for both Carlin and Alleway. I saw this film and couldn’t really get into it. The art direction and costumes were great, but will the quality of film hurt its chances? For costumes the film’s quality hasn’t mattered recently (Marie Antoinette and Elizabeth: The Golden Age), but I don’t see it winning here at all.

Revolutionary Road recreates classic 50s suburbia. This is the second nomination for Zea (’97 for As Good As It Gets) and first nom for Schutt. Like The Duchess, I don’t like this film’s chances. I love the 50’s, but this film is greatly misunderstood by many people. It definitely is not liked within the Academy as it failed to get nominations for both Kate and Leo. It will suffer from that and the chances of a film like this winning would seem slim to none.

I expect Button to win this category. I wouldn’t say it’s a lock, but I’m fairly confident. A lot of people don’t like this film, but obviously the Academy likes it enough to give it 13 nominations. While I don’t see it winning anything major on Sunday, it should still win a few Oscars. Look out for possibly The Dark Knight, but I would consider that to be an upset.

Editor’s note: Welcome to the first of a multi-part series dissecting the 2008 Academy Awards, brought to you by the Large Association of Movie Blogs and its assorted members. Every weekday for the next couple weeks, a new post written by a different LAMB will be published, each covering a different category (or more) of the Oscars (there are 24 in all). To read any other posts regarding this event, please just click on the tag following the post. Thank you, and enjoy!

By Nick from Boomstick Reviews

What in the heck is Art Direction, and what does an Art Director do? Those are the questions I had to ask myself when I was assigned Best Art Direction for the LAMB Oscar Nomination Massive Writing Project Thing. The Oscar homepage obviously doesn’t have descriptions of what each category looks into, so I went to my good friend Google, who directed me to our mutual friend Wikipedia, and I found an answer. Notice I said an answer, and not the answer. What I got basically said that an Art Director works below a Production Designer, but above a Set Designer and Set Decorator. They are responsible for keeping budget and scheduling, assigning tasks, and act as a liaison between other art-like departments. So how did all this help me in figuring out how to judge what movie had the best art direction? It didn’t, really.

So from what I figure, Best Art Direction looks at the overall package: The costumes, the sets, the props, the drawings of how things look before it goes to CGI, and everything that makes a movie pretty or gritty. In other words, it’s kind of like Best Picture, where a good movie is only as good as the actors, actresses, script, etc., and each of those get their individual awards; likewise, the costumes and sets and all that good stuff get their own awards, as well, but it all ends up falling under Art Direction. If you aren’t confused by now and still know what the heck I’m talking about, that’s awesome, and we can finally get into the good stuff.

This year, the following five movies have been nominated for Best Art Direction: American Gangster, Atonement, The Golden Compass, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, and There Will Be Blood. Unfortunately, for those of you who regularly read my own blog, you’ll know how bad my small town is about getting Oscar-y movies here. In other words, the only movie on this list that I’ve actually seen is The Golden Compass. But this might be a good thing, because I can do just like the normal Oscar people and only watch a small clip (I’ll be watching each movie’s trailers) and base my entire opinion solely on that… with the exception of The Golden Compass, as I’ve actually seen it. So without further ado, here are the nominations for Best Art Direction:

First I’ll start with American Gangster. This movie’s pretty or gritty (as a noun), as I’ll call it, looks relatively boring. Sure, they’re wearing some… black/tan suits and collared shirts… and the diner looks like a diner… and that’s about it, really. From what I saw, I’m not exactly sure how this made it in Best Art Direction. Weren’t there any other more stylish movies out there? What about Juno with those hamburger phones and knee-high running socks? It really just looked like your everyday cop/detective movie or TV show, but with a bigger budget. I have to admit that this one did come to my town when it first came out, but I didn’t go see it because, frankly, it looked boring. And if it looks boring or unappealing, that’s probably a fault with the Art Director, wouldn’t you think? I can’t see American Gangster winning this one.

Next is Atonement. I really hadn’t heard much of anything about this movie until maybe about a month or two before it came out. And, of course, it didn’t come out here. From the trailers, I still have no idea what it’s about, but that’s not important for this category. What is important is how it looks, the pretty or gritty. And from what I saw, it had both. The costumes looked great for the time period, and the settings and locations and such look wonderful and appealing to the eye. Everything just seemed to work together nicely to make it look both pretty and gritty when the respective moments arose.

Now for The Golden Compass. This is the biggest contender, I think. And I’m not saying this because it’s the only movie on the list I’ve actually seen. I honestly think it has the most eye-candy and is the most appealing. From everything about Jordan College to the ice lands to the dresses and outfits to the alethiometer (Golden Compass) itself—and everything in between—this movie is by far the best to look at. It’s going to be a tough contender with the other four.

Fourth will be a movie I was really upset about not being able to see, Sweeney Todd. There’s really only one thing to say about this movie: Tim Burton. He has a style, and it’s a very beautiful and unique style. He uses color contrasts. There are the bleak blacks and whites and grays, and then there are the incredibly bright reds and yellows and such in contrast to really make them pop out. It’s like forced beauty, but it works. This is in a similar fashion, from what it seems, to Edward Scissorhands and Sleepy Hollow, both also starring Johnny Depp. The sets are dark and gloomy, and the outfits rightfully match the gloom. If any movie would give The Golden Compass a run for its money, it would be Sweeney Todd.

Finally, we are left with There Will Be Blood. This is another movie I hadn’t really heard of until right before it came out. From what I’ve seen, much like Sweeney Todd, it leans more toward the gritty than the pretty. But it works, too. There wasn’t much to see from the trailer, but the costumes looked good for the period, the barren location/set was nice to look at, empty though it may be. Even the houses looked good. However, this movie might get a load of Oscars in other areas, but I don’t think Art Direction will be one of them. It was good, but not as good as the previous two.

All that said, I believe it’ll be a close race between The Golden Compass and Sweeney Todd. I honestly don’t know which one might win over the other. The Golden Compass has the pretty, while Sweeney Todd has the gritty, so their Art Direction is good, but in different ways. If it were up to me, I would say The Golden Compass for a few different reasons. First would be that Sweeney Todd looks like a bunch of other Burton films, and those haven’t really won in the past, so why would one win now? Plus, The Golden Compass has a lot more to offer. It has numerous different locales and props and outfits and this and that, while Sweeney Todd mainly seems to stick with the really dank colors or the really bright colors. As such, my vote goes to The Golden Compass. But who will actually win? I’m not sure, but I feel it will be one of these two.